Hoppe v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 09 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 12684,12684 |
| Citation | 100 Idaho 133,594 P.2d 643 |
| Parties | , 19 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9220 Betty HOPPE, an Individual, Plaintiff-Respondent, and Idaho Human Rights Commission, Plaintiff, v. Glenn W. NICHOLS, Director of the Department of Employment and the Department of Employment for the State of Idaho, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., R. LaVar Marsh, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for defendant-appellant.
Lloyd J. Walker of Walker & Kennedy, Twin Falls, for plaintiff-respondent.
The issue presented on appeal is whether the District Court was correct in its conclusion that it was bound by the findings of the Idaho Commission on Human Rights that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to an award of back pay.
On January 20, 1974, Betty Hoppe, an employee of the Department of Employment, filed a complaint with the Idaho Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination in the Department's promotion practices. Hearings were held before the Idaho Human Rights Commission at which time evidence was submitted in support of and in opposition to Betty Hoppe's claim of sex discrimination. Following the hearings the Human Rights Commission issued "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations," on July 3, 1975. 1 The Commission found that promotional procedures and practices, influenced by sex-determined social relationships and other sex-biased cultural factors, worked to deny women equal opportunity with men in seeking promotion. As a result of its findings the Commission concluded that the Department of Employment did discriminate against the respondent and recommended, among other matters, that she be awarded back pay equal to the difference she would have received between January 1, 1973, and December 13, 1973, had she been classified at a higher pay grade.
The Department of Employment refused to conciliate and made no effort to appeal the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations" of the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission sought to enforce its Recommendations in district court and the respondent Betty Hoppe was added as a party to that action. Motions for summary judgment were submitted by all parties. The district court determined that it was bound by the findings of the Commission on Human Rights to the effect that the appellant had discriminated against Betty Hoppe in view of the Department's failure to appeal the findings and recommendations of the Commission pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court based its decision on the conclusion that the proceeding before the Human Rights Commission was a "contested case." As a consequence, the District Court determined that Betty Hoppe was entitled to an award of back pay as recommended by the Human Rights Commission.
A "contested case" within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act is a proceeding "in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing." I.C. § 67-5201(2). At the time of the hearing in question the Rules and Regulations of the Idaho Commission on Human Rights, Article IV 4.1, provided as follows:
Any hearing or any proceeding thereon or related thereto, shall not be deemed a "contested case" within the meaning of section 67-5201(2), Idaho Code, because neither the Commission, nor any investigator designated by the Commission, shall determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of a party. Any determination by the Commission, advisory committee, or a report of an investigator shall constitute no more than findings and recommendations, or either of them.
The decision of the district court denominating the hearing before the Commission to be a "contested case" is, therefore, contrary to the regulations of the Commission in effect at the time. The regulation is consistent with I.C. § 67-5906, the statute delineating the powers and duties of the Commission. At the times relevant to this case, I.C. § 67-5906 did not confer upon the Commission the power to enter orders. A 1976 amendment extended the power of the Commission, but that amendment is not applicable in this case.
The decision of the district court was founded on the premise that the Department of Employment was required to Appeal the Findings and Recommendations of the Commission on Human Rights, this premise being based upon the conclusion that the hearing before the Commission was a "contested case." The initial conclusion that the hearing was a "contested case" is in error. As a consequence, the premise that the Department of Employment was required to appeal the Findings and Recommendations is also in error. Judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act is limited to "contested cases." I.C. § 67-5215. Therefore, the Department had no right to judicial review of the Commission's Findings and Recommendations and was, as a consequence, not required or entitled to appeal the Findings and Recommendations. Summary judgment based upon the Commission's Findings and Recommendations is in error. Those Findings and Recommendations have no binding effect.
Based upon the foregoing analysis, it appears that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the respondent and the judgment of the district court is, therefore reversed.
FINDINGS
1. Complainant, Betty Hoppe, filed a charge with this Commission on January 20, 1974.
2. In her charge, Complainant alleged that she was denied meritorious salary increases and promotional opportunities because of her sex in violation of Idaho Code 67-5909 and that, on December 13, 1973, she resigned under duress to protest against the sex discrimination she experienced in the Twin Falls Office of the Department of Employment.
3. Complainant began employment with Respondent on October 1, 1970, and continued that employment until December 13, 1973.
4. Complainant was hired at the level of "Interviewer II" at a salary of $527.00 per month. On April 1, 1971, she completed her probationary period, her appointment status became "permanent" and her salary was increased to $553.00 per month. On December 1, 1971, and October 1, 1972, Complainant received "in-grade" increases which raised her salary to a level of $673.00 per month. Her salary remained at that level until she was separated from the Department of Employment in December of 1973.
5. During the course of her employment with Respondent, Complainant received periodic work performance evaluations. Her ratings were uniformly and remarkably high.
6. In the course of her employment with Respondent, Complainant had numerous and varied responsibilities and duties but, after her first year with Respondent, was to devote most of her time and talents to developing and implementing an Employer Relations Program. Complainant had primary responsibility for what the record indicates was an almost uniquely successful program.
7. Complainant has alleged that Respondent employed twenty-three (23) persons with employer relations duties throughout the State and that all but herself were men and that all of those men were paid more than she was. This allegation is not supported by evidence before the Commission and the record indicates that the duties of the Employer Relations Representative position were generally distributed among a number of persons, both male and female, at pay grades both higher and lower than Complainant's.
8. The Commission finds that during the period of Complainant's employment with Respondent, four (4) employees in Respondent's Twin Falls Office were given meritorious increases. All were males.
9. The Commission finds that Complainant regularly and clearly expressed to her supervisor(s) her interest in career advancement within the Department of Employment.
10. The Commission finds that as early as 1969 the U.S. Department of Labor advised the State Department of Employment that it should facilitate the career advancement of "pre-professionals" by eliminating formal educational requirements and allowing the substitution of related work experience as the qualifying factor for advancement (See Respondent's Exhibit "G").
11. The Commission finds that prior to January of 1973, Complainant was barred from consideration for promotion by educational requirements which, by the admission of Respondent's own chief personnel officer, acted as "artificial barriers" to advancement by women and minorities.
12. The Commission finds that the promotional procedures and practices in effect in Respondent's Twin Falls Office between 1970 and 1974 militated against the promotion of women. We find that Respondent did not provide its managers (nearly all male) with the kind of clearly delineated and firmly mandated affirmative action goals or guidelines which might have focused serious attention on the need to work for the hiring and promotion of women into mid-level management positions. It is not surprising that, without such goals and guidelines, promotional decisions continued to be influenced by sex-determined social relationships and other sex-biased cultural factors which worked to deny women seeking such positions an equal opportunity to be considered for them.
13. The Commission finds that the use of all male "review" boards to evaluate the qualifications of persons applying for promotions tended to work against the consideration of women for those positions.
14. The Commission finds that Complainant resigned under duress and to protest the sex discrimination she had experienced while employed by Respondent.
15. The Commission finds that women were grossly underrepresented in pay grades 8 through 16, and particularly in grades 10 through 16 during 1970-1973, and that as late as February of 1974 only ten percent ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Gibson
- State v. Jones, 19432
-
Hoppe v. McDonald
... ... On appeal, this court held that the findings and recommendations of the Commission on Human Rights had no binding effect on the district court, and therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Hoppe v. Nichols, 100 Idaho 133, 594 P.2d 643 (1979). On remand, a trial de novo was held by the district court, sitting with an advisory jury. The district court held that the Department had not discriminated against Hoppe on the basis of her sex and entered judgment in favor of the Department ... ...
- State v. Humpherys